9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er husband. Moreover, the factum of sale of agricultural land by the Husband of Smt. Anita Kumari is not disputed by the Revenue. CIT(A) has adopted a possible view with regard to availability of fund from deposit in the banks accounts of Smt. Anita Kumari. AO did not bring any material on records suggesting that the cash belonged to the assessee. Hence, we see no merit into the ground of the revenue. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 334/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2017 - SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. This Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that, during the course of the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) had sought remand report from the AO and during the remand proceedings the assessee filed copies of their bank account for the period 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2009, details of immediate sources of the funds provided, Copy of Return of Income along with computation Trading Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report of Smt. Anita Kumari and Shri Sanjay Kumar for the period of AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR (Raj.) 622. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that source of fund in the hands of lender was also proved by the appellant. Both lender and her husband submitted affidavits admitting that loan was given to the appellant and also explaining the source of such loan. Appellant also submitted that all the details called by the AO were submitted. Only lender could not be produced before the AO since she was staying outstation and was not prepared to come on appellant s request. It was further argued that AO could have enforced the attendance of lender. But just on the basis of non-attendance by the lender, adverse view cannot be taken in the case of appellant when complete onus is discharged by her. In the remand report assessing officer examined the evidences submitted by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k statement therefore genuineness is also established. As regards creditworthiness, the source of loan was explained to be from the sale proceeds of agriculture land for which necessary evidences were submitted. Considering these facts and relying on the relevant decisions, it is clear that appellant has discharged her onus by explaining the loan taken by her and therefore addition cannot be made in her case. Accordingly, addition on account of loan made by the AO is deleted. 5.1 Above finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. The AO made addition on the ground that the source of the source of loan amount could not be explained. However, the Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
